@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Is it more likely that George Stevenson may have named his first portable steam engine after a fire breathing Dragon. I understand from reading Tom Rolt's book about him and his Son Robert Stevenson that George's character was like a Gentleman- Black smith, while Robert was like a Gentleman-engineer. Rolt as a fellow engineer I think certainly makes them sound very gallant in the part of English history in which they lived
@@eliotreader8220 George Stephenson was no gentleman. He was a working class engineer. And despite becoming very rich toward the end of his life, remained a working class engineer. Hands one, practical mechanic. He was rough, uncouth but had been moulded into a more socially acceptable from by Edward Pease of Darlington. Robert Stephenson was solidly middle class, and, sadly, ignored his working class roots when it came to working class education and wanted to pull up the ladder behind him. I'm not sure either were very gallant, or that it was as romantic and nice and tidy as Rolt portrays things. George could be very nasty: he was very quick at seeing and using other people's ideas and using them (people and ideas) and equally quick to drop and abandon them once hed used them. George was also a very very poor manager and the Liverpool & Manchester, for example, was built despite George. Plus a lot is claimed for George *which he never did*.
Nice to hear of the Alternate meanings of the name Blucher , considering the noise and smok and steam, it would seem that the meaning of dragon or sprite would be likely. :)
I’d like to speak in William Hedley’s defence for a bit. If track improvement expenses increased in Aug. 1814 as you suggest resulting from locomotives breaking the tracks, then the locomotive must have been in some shape fit to run on the original tracks to break them in the first place. This may be a reason to push back the completion date of the Puffing Billy to before August 1814.
Very informative and well researched. Can you make a video about the track gauge to dispel the myth about it being copied from Roman cart ruts and the width of a horses behind?
I read somewhere that the reason Blenkinsop's rack railway type locomotives fell out of use was that the rack and pinion had to be put on one side because horses also used the railway, and that this resulted in excess twisting forces causing many failures. Was this the case? Railways where the rack and pinion are on the centre line are still used successfully on mountain railways.
The rack was laid down at the side as a quick expedient and also to leave the middle of the track clear for horses. Whilst the Middleton was entirely mechanically worked other than the mining of the coal, at other locations such as Kenton & Coxlodge and Willington horses were still in use. Matthew Murray notes in correspondance that the rack at the side was a mistake in the long run due to excessive wear on one set of wheels. There is no evidence of "many failures" on the Middelton. The locomotives were at work at Leeds from 1812 into the 1830s. At the Orrell Colliery near wigan for a similar period. They were very succesful machines. At least a dozen were built: four at Middleton, two for Kenton & Coxlodge; one at Willington; two or three under licence at Orrell; one or two in Belgium and two in Germany. The German examples were not sucess but the others were. The only failure attributable to the Middleton locomotives is one exploding after the driver had tampered with the safety valve in 1818 and another about ten years later. There's a lot of miss-information about how the Blenkinsop and Murray locomotives were failures especially compared to Stephenson or that Blenkinsop and Murray didn't understand adhesion. Yet their locomotives operated succesful for decades and they clearly did understand a locomotive could move under its own power on rails, its that they were building a machine sufficiently light so that it did not break cast iron track, but in so doing it was too light to move a useful load so the rack and pinion system was adtoped. In fact Blenkinsop notes his locomotives could move far heavier loads than Stephensons and also do so in the rain snow and ice.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory The first explosion was driver error (infact failure to adhere to instructions), the second lack of maintenance when funds got tight. I suppose we have to credit Stephenson with eventually improving the rails to take a higher weight and hammer blow from wheels.
Yes they have. Most of the English examples are discussed in my book 'Before Rocket.' The more esoteric South Wales examples are covered by Dr Michael Lewis or elsewhere. The basic text is that by C F Dendy Marshall, now very out of date, from the 1950s. Or for more the most up to date research check out the proceedings from the on-going series of international Early Railways Conferences. :-)
no entiendo la lengua anglo pero igualmente diferencio que tu sos o escoces o gales ,te felicito pr tu trabajo muy buen material de difusion de conocimieto.
I notice that Hetton Billy has been fitted at some time with coupling rods. At what date did four wheeled locos become four coupled? I know Lion and the Bury locos were all so, but i am going back to Stevenson and others' earliest days.
George Stephenson proposed coupling wheels with rods and a crank axle in 1816. However the suggestion to use outside coupling rods came from John Kennedy during his time at Robert Stephenson & Co in the mid-1820s (whilst George was away on the L&M project and Robert in South America). The locomotives produced during his time at Forth Street were the two for Springwell and the five for the Stockton & Darlington: in fact the two Springwell locos were ordered first, but delayed due to the urgency of the S&DR order. See my book "Before Rocket" for more.
I have seen the painting of George Stephenson in the back ground the one where there is a steam train on the Liverpool and Manchester railway but whats that dark lump meant to be? do you think it mite have been a lump of steam coal or coke or possibly a lump of peat from Chatt moss?
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory thank you for the information. I just thought it was another type of fuel. how did they supply the fuel for the early industrial engines
in the days before matches where invented how did they light fires in the Fireboxes of the early steam locomotives? when locomotion was delivered and placed on the railway for the first time i understand George Stephenson lighted her first fire useing firewood and some old rope and he actually lit it using a looking glass that he had been given by a workman
They'd use a flint and steel, as at home, or something called a 'Burning Glass' which was a poweful magnifying glass to focus the sun's rays. Usually, there was a permanent source of combustion available. So they didn't have to use flint and steel every time.
@@eliotreader8220 It was estimated by John Blekinsop in 1813 that to maintain one horse in food and farriery cost £78 6s per year. The cost of one maintaing one of his locomotives was £50. So not an insignificant saving. Furthermore more, his patent locomotives could move a larger load than a horse ever could, and could work 24hours if needed. The cost of purchasing one locomotive was about the same as five or more good horses. The locomotive was more cost effective hands down.
Anthony maybe I can help you with Blucher - none of which your pronunciations were right according to me having lived in the NE of England for many years. Stephenson was born near Wylam as we all know. He was actually born in a small cottage (which can be visited today) just outside of Wylam alongside an old coal wagon way which took the coal from a couple of pits down to the river Tyne for onward shipment. Within 5 miles of Stephensons birthplace is a row of old pit cottages in a place named Blucher. I have always thought that this was the logical origin of the name of the engine? Seems right to me. Anyone else?
Blucher the pit village grew up around Walbottle Colliery. The Blucher Pit itself was sunk in 1815 or just a bit later - so after Stephenson's first locomotive ran at Killingworth.
@@furripupau Well, there's Blenkinsop or Murrays original working model from 1812 which is usually on display at Leeds City Museums but has been loaned to the Science Museum Group for an exhibition 'Brass Steel and Fire' which collects about a dozen early railway locomotive models, c.1800-1840s which is now at the Science Museum in London have previously been on display at the NRM in York. There's also a large scale model of a Blenkinsop locomoive at Beamish museum too. A full size replica of one was included in the replicas built for Joseph Pangborn for the Columbian Exposition 1892-93. Sadly it was destroyed many years ago when the roof of the Baltimore and Ohio museum collapsed. A more recent collapse destroyed even more of the Pangborn replicas.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Fortunately, there are a few of those B&O replicas in other locations, I know the Old Ironsides, Sandusky, and York are still in existence elsewhere. I can't recall if the wooden version of Lafayette still exists, but for some reason I'm sure I've seen it somewhere before (edit: it's at the Allegheny Portage Road. Hercules also still exists, although I've never seen it, or even a photo of it). It would interesting to know if somebody has tracked down all of the ones that still exist.
@@wiltothecollector4420 It was made for Major Joseph Pangborn for the Columbian Exposition in America in 1892-93 and kept at the Museum of the Baltimore & Ohio Railway. Sadly, the roof of that museum collapsed in 1953 and over half of them were destroyed. Another roof collapse in 2003 damaging nine of the survivors. Absolute tragedy.
Another fascinating video, thankyou. Is the background music a new idea ? I have never noticed it before, and it was getting on my nerves, like an ice cream van chime lol.
It didnt, it probably survived only a few years. The image I use is of a full size mock-up built in 1893 for the Colombian Exposition by Clement Stretton - despite Stretton very often making things up to suit his own agenda - based on known dimensions of the locomotive and a scale drawing of the gearing drawn by Nicholas Wood in his treatise on railways. Hope this helps.
Thankyou for your comment. This video essay was written from the most recent research into Stephenson and his locomotives by leading early railway historians Dr Michael Bailey; and by Andy Guy, and John Cromtpon on William Hedley/Wylam Colliery (Also leading early railway authorities) published as part of the International Early Railway series of Conferences. I present a synthesis of their work here and in my own book "Befor Rocket" from Gresley Books :)
Long stroke cylinders do not waste steam, if the cut off is correct they make better use of steam. Long stroke cylinders were probably necessary to develop sufficient torque to make a viable engine with the low steam pressures of the era. Short strokes are used in high speed engines, mostly late steam era like Uniflow engines.
Absolutely amazing, it's always a pleasure to watch these history videos you make!
Keep up the good work chap!
Excellent , I didn't know the Blucher was before Puffing Billy and use adhesion drive earlier than Billy. Please do a Puffing Billy next time.
The start of one of the greatest names in railway history. Thanks for your fine video essay.
Many thanks!
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Is it more likely that George Stevenson may have named his first portable steam engine after a fire breathing Dragon.
I understand from reading Tom Rolt's book about him and his Son Robert
Stevenson that George's character was like a Gentleman- Black smith,
while Robert was like a Gentleman-engineer. Rolt as a fellow engineer I think certainly makes them sound very gallant in the part of English history in which they lived
@@eliotreader8220 George Stephenson was no gentleman. He was a working class engineer. And despite becoming very rich toward the end of his life, remained a working class engineer. Hands one, practical mechanic. He was rough, uncouth but had been moulded into a more socially acceptable from by Edward Pease of Darlington. Robert Stephenson was solidly middle class, and, sadly, ignored his working class roots when it came to working class education and wanted to pull up the ladder behind him. I'm not sure either were very gallant, or that it was as romantic and nice and tidy as Rolt portrays things. George could be very nasty: he was very quick at seeing and using other people's ideas and using them (people and ideas) and equally quick to drop and abandon them once hed used them. George was also a very very poor manager and the Liverpool & Manchester, for example, was built despite George. Plus a lot is claimed for George *which he never did*.
Wonderful panacea for a Gods awful day! Thank you Mr Dawson for another wonderful piece.
Good work!
Thanks!
A well researched and enjoyable video about early loco development.
Thankyou
Quite amazing that such a locomotive was the first of Stephenson
Nice you added music in your vid it makes it better
Nice to hear of the Alternate meanings of the name Blucher , considering the noise and smok and steam, it would seem that the meaning of dragon or sprite would be likely. :)
how about a episode on william & edward chapman's chain locomotive?
I’d like to speak in William Hedley’s defence for a bit. If track improvement expenses increased in Aug. 1814 as you suggest resulting from locomotives breaking the tracks, then the locomotive must have been in some shape fit to run on the original tracks to break them in the first place. This may be a reason to push back the completion date of the Puffing Billy to before August 1814.
If I may, allow myself this one joke:
_HORSE WHINNY!_
Wide eyed smile
Wylam Dilly is preserved at the NMS in Edinburgh
Very informative and well researched.
Can you make a video about the track gauge to dispel the myth about it being copied from Roman cart ruts and the width of a horses behind?
I read somewhere that the reason Blenkinsop's rack railway type locomotives fell out of use was that the rack and pinion had to be put on one side because horses also used the railway, and that this resulted in excess twisting forces causing many failures. Was this the case?
Railways where the rack and pinion are on the centre line are still used successfully on mountain railways.
The rack was laid down at the side as a quick expedient and also to leave the middle of the track clear for horses. Whilst the Middleton was entirely mechanically worked other than the mining of the coal, at other locations such as Kenton & Coxlodge and Willington horses were still in use. Matthew Murray notes in correspondance that the rack at the side was a mistake in the long run due to excessive wear on one set of wheels. There is no evidence of "many failures" on the Middelton. The locomotives were at work at Leeds from 1812 into the 1830s. At the Orrell Colliery near wigan for a similar period. They were very succesful machines. At least a dozen were built: four at Middleton, two for Kenton & Coxlodge; one at Willington; two or three under licence at Orrell; one or two in Belgium and two in Germany. The German examples were not sucess but the others were. The only failure attributable to the Middleton locomotives is one exploding after the driver had tampered with the safety valve in 1818 and another about ten years later. There's a lot of miss-information about how the Blenkinsop and Murray locomotives were failures especially compared to Stephenson or that Blenkinsop and Murray didn't understand adhesion. Yet their locomotives operated succesful for decades and they clearly did understand a locomotive could move under its own power on rails, its that they were building a machine sufficiently light so that it did not break cast iron track, but in so doing it was too light to move a useful load so the rack and pinion system was adtoped. In fact Blenkinsop notes his locomotives could move far heavier loads than Stephensons and also do so in the rain snow and ice.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Thank you for the clarification. :-)
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory The first explosion was driver error (infact failure to adhere to instructions), the second lack of maintenance when funds got tight. I suppose we have to credit Stephenson with eventually improving the rails to take a higher weight and hammer blow from wheels.
Has anyone ever created a list of all the early locomotives?
Yes they have. Most of the English examples are discussed in my book 'Before Rocket.' The more esoteric South Wales examples are covered by Dr Michael Lewis or elsewhere. The basic text is that by C F Dendy Marshall, now very out of date, from the 1950s. Or for more the most up to date research check out the proceedings from the on-going series of international Early Railways Conferences. :-)
no entiendo la lengua anglo pero igualmente diferencio que tu sos o escoces o gales ,te felicito pr tu trabajo muy buen material de difusion de conocimieto.
Or is it all three: A big heavy fiery dragon that defeated Napoleon in Leipzig
we need to make that movie! Well Naomi Novik has already written the books.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Honestly someone needs to make a movie about Robert Stephenson's adventures with Richard Trevithick
I notice that Hetton Billy has been fitted at some time with coupling rods. At what date did four wheeled locos become four coupled? I know Lion and the Bury locos were all so, but i am going back to Stevenson and others' earliest days.
George Stephenson proposed coupling wheels with rods and a crank axle in 1816. However the suggestion to use outside coupling rods came from John Kennedy during his time at Robert Stephenson & Co in the mid-1820s (whilst George was away on the L&M project and Robert in South America). The locomotives produced during his time at Forth Street were the two for Springwell and the five for the Stockton & Darlington: in fact the two Springwell locos were ordered first, but delayed due to the urgency of the S&DR order. See my book "Before Rocket" for more.
I have seen the painting of George Stephenson in the back ground the one where there is a steam train on the Liverpool and Manchester railway but whats that dark lump meant to be? do you think it mite have been a lump of steam coal or coke or possibly a lump of peat from Chatt moss?
It's a pile of stacked pieces of peat, dug from Chat Moss.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory thank you for the information. I just thought it was another type of fuel.
how did they supply the fuel for the early industrial engines
Why does it look like a car muffler on wheels?
Considering the fact that its just a kettle with a big tube inside it. I would think that is a fairly reasonable comparison
in the days before matches where invented how did they light fires in the Fireboxes of the early steam locomotives? when locomotion was delivered and placed on the railway for the first time i understand George Stephenson lighted her first fire useing firewood and some old rope and he actually lit it using a looking glass that he had been given by a workman
They'd use a flint and steel, as at home, or something called a 'Burning Glass' which was a poweful magnifying glass to focus the sun's rays. Usually, there was a permanent source of combustion available. So they didn't have to use flint and steel every time.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory where these engines lit up by the footplate crews or people who's job it was to light the fires in steam locomotives
what was the price of Horse feed compared to steam coal in 1814-1815?
@@eliotreader8220 It was estimated by John Blekinsop in 1813 that to maintain one horse in food and farriery cost £78 6s per year. The cost of one maintaing one of his locomotives was £50. So not an insignificant saving. Furthermore more, his patent locomotives could move a larger load than a horse ever could, and could work 24hours if needed. The cost of purchasing one locomotive was about the same as five or more good horses. The locomotive was more cost effective hands down.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory whats that in new money pounds and pence? I am a little bit rusty when it comes to old money.
Anthony maybe I can help you with Blucher - none of which your pronunciations were right according to me having lived in the NE of England for many years. Stephenson was born near Wylam as we all know. He was actually born in a small cottage (which can be visited today) just outside of Wylam alongside an old coal wagon way which took the coal from a couple of pits down to the river Tyne for onward shipment. Within 5 miles of Stephensons birthplace is a row of old pit cottages in a place named Blucher. I have always thought that this was the logical origin of the name of the engine? Seems right to me. Anyone else?
Blucher the pit village grew up around Walbottle Colliery. The Blucher Pit itself was sunk in 1815 or just a bit later - so after Stephenson's first locomotive ran at Killingworth.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory I lived in Walbottle and regularly drove past Blucher well very small group of pit terrace houses
Just a little question. How much it would cost to build a working replica of a Salamanca.
About a million pounds sterling. And of course you'd have to have replica track to run it on too.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Do you know of any (modern) operable scale models? A 1:4 scale model would even be pretty impressive, I'd think.
@@furripupau Well, there's Blenkinsop or Murrays original working model from 1812 which is usually on display at Leeds City Museums but has been loaned to the Science Museum Group for an exhibition 'Brass Steel and Fire' which collects about a dozen early railway locomotive models, c.1800-1840s which is now at the Science Museum in London have previously been on display at the NRM in York. There's also a large scale model of a Blenkinsop locomoive at Beamish museum too. A full size replica of one was included in the replicas built for Joseph Pangborn for the Columbian Exposition 1892-93. Sadly it was destroyed many years ago when the roof of the Baltimore and Ohio museum collapsed. A more recent collapse destroyed even more of the Pangborn replicas.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory Fortunately, there are a few of those B&O replicas in other locations, I know the Old Ironsides, Sandusky, and York are still in existence elsewhere. I can't recall if the wooden version of Lafayette still exists, but for some reason I'm sure I've seen it somewhere before (edit: it's at the Allegheny Portage Road. Hercules also still exists, although I've never seen it, or even a photo of it). It would interesting to know if somebody has tracked down all of the ones that still exist.
where's the picture of blucher from, if it even is blucher?
It's a Victorian photograph of a static replica built in the USA in the 1890s. Sadly since lost.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory lost as in scrapped, or lost as in fate unkown?
@@wiltothecollector4420 It was made for Major Joseph Pangborn for the Columbian Exposition in America in 1892-93 and kept at the Museum of the Baltimore & Ohio Railway. Sadly, the roof of that museum collapsed in 1953 and over half of them were destroyed. Another roof collapse in 2003 damaging nine of the survivors. Absolute tragedy.
@@AnthonyDawsonHistory thanks for the info
Another fascinating video, thankyou. Is the background music a new idea ? I have never noticed it before, and it was getting on my nerves, like an ice cream van chime lol.
So somehow, Blucher survived into the photographic age but hasn't survived into the present
It didnt, it probably survived only a few years. The image I use is of a full size mock-up built in 1893 for the Colombian Exposition by Clement Stretton - despite Stretton very often making things up to suit his own agenda - based on known dimensions of the locomotive and a scale drawing of the gearing drawn by Nicholas Wood in his treatise on railways. Hope this helps.
You have a couple of technical errors
Thankyou for your comment. This video essay was written from the most recent research into Stephenson and his locomotives by leading early railway historians Dr Michael Bailey; and by Andy Guy, and John Cromtpon on William Hedley/Wylam Colliery (Also leading early railway authorities) published as part of the International Early Railway series of Conferences. I present a synthesis of their work here and in my own book "Befor Rocket" from Gresley Books :)
Long stroke cylinders do not waste steam, if the cut off is correct they make better use of steam.
Long stroke cylinders were probably necessary to develop sufficient torque to make a viable engine with the low steam pressures of the era.
Short strokes are used in high speed engines, mostly late steam era like Uniflow engines.
Also Blücher.